Geologizer

Like most probably, I've been visiting this thread periodically for the amusing reading. I didn't really care to jump in because the OP was so blatantly fake, but the last few posts have come back to some enticing points.Gnome Chomsky touched on an interesting point, but I think it's worth putting out there explicitly. Consider the hypothetical situation: It's mid-terms week in your class. Test grades are to be posted outside your office, and students come to see their grade on their own time - everyone can see everyone else's grades. While grading, you notice that one student totally bombed the test. The student isn't overtly disregarding the class - comes to class, doesn't disrupt others, etc. But still, totally bombed. You have two choices. 1. You decide that you should give the student a passing grade, but make sure to tell that student that they really need to improve. After all, grades are going to be public. Everyone can see it, and that's going to be really tough. Further, perhaps there was some really good excuse for that poor test. Maybe that student has a learning disorder, or had a family emergency, or had some other cause out of their control. You empathize, so you pat yourself on the back because you didn't make a harsh snap judgment, save them some embarrassment, and you're sure that they'll get it turned around. 2. You give the grade they deserve. You know that everyone is going to be able to see the grades, and if you inflate their grade, they're going to see it's not that far off from everyone else's. Even if you make a point to tell them they're far behind, you see the obvious mixed message and at that point you're part of the problem, complicit. You acknowledge that if something extraordinary was at fault, then they'll take the grade with a grain of salt and move on. I don't think I have to articulate the parallels to this thread, but I think we can mostly agree option 2 is the most responsible and constructive course of action. With all that said, I don't think people should necessarily push their judgement on people unsolicited. That is a sense of entitlement that I think is a bit over the line. What I don't think is over the line is passing judgement in your own mind, or voicing your honest opinion if asked. The reality is that an overwhelming percentage of obesity cases are controllable. Many health problems that contribute to obesity are directly attributable or exacerbated by being obese. Further, those with genetic predispositions have to cater their lifestyle to that fact. People can become healthy almost all of the time if they make real constructive change. If those who "can't" lose weight means "can't while maintaining my same lifestyle," then frankly, I agree. But isn't that kind of the point? Lastly, I think the kid gloves need to come off and people need to start treating everyone else like adults. Judgement is a part of reality, and people need to learn how to deal with it. We judge all of the time, and it is necessary that we do it, not evil. If you want to draw a line, how about this: as soon as empathy infringes on people's ability to handle adversity, then you've crossed the line. Quit coddling people, and let them grow. Judgement and adversity imposed by society and/or individuals can be a constructive and healthy thing, despite what the current PC culture would suggest.

For me, yes. Of my 4 applications, I was accepted into 3 of the programs. The one where I was rejected, the possibility of acceptance was always contingent on a grant coming through - it didn't. Essentially, my application season has turned out exactly as they predicted.

I think it really depends on the professor.

ASU made its first round of offers a few weeks ago, and the prospective/recruitment weekend was last weekend. Because the first round of acceptances was a few weeks ago now, I would imagine there was also a large first round of rejections that went out as well. If that's the case I would say that if you haven't heard anything you're probably on some sort of a wait-list deal. Or, as we all know, getting professors to do anything on time is like trying to nail jello to a wall, so perhaps some people just haven't made decisions yet.

Did you talk to potential advisors at your schools to make sure they're taking students? I'm in the same general interest category, so the reason that I ask is because I know that a few of the professors that I wanted to work with at a couple of your schools weren't planning to take students. I was inquiring for PhD though, so perhaps their response was different for MS students, or perhaps you are hoping to work with someone different than the ones I talked to. Some really good schools for that line of work though, so best of luck!

It is a fine line, and I will preface this by saying that context is everything. Little ques from the OP were what I ran with, and perhaps it was helpful. There is a huge difference between hand-holding and guidance. In grad school, you're supposed to be creative and contribute original thoughts on a matter; do your own thinking. The mentor's job is to help guide your thoughts and help you to grow, but in my opinion, is not to tell you what to do all the time (obvious exceptions here), what to think, how to think, etc. At that point you're just a trained chimp - i.e. an undergrad (lol had to). Obviously asking questions should be perfectly well within the realm of reason. It just sounds like you and your mentor need to hash some things out.

I would say to approach it one step at a time, and give as little information as possible at each step. The first and easiest step is just put in for the time off. If you get it, you get it, and you're set. Problem solved. If they ask why you're doing it, I'd offer some vague "I'm traveling those weekends" excuse, and see if that's good enough. I wouldn't lie, especially if you're currently working in the industry that you're hoping to come back to. Usually if you don't spew a bunch of info upon first request, the inquirer, if not particularly motivated, will just drop it. Again, problem solved. If they are really pressing you, and are really requiring specifics, then I'd just tell them in a non-definite way that you're exploring "furthering your education." That keeps it super PC/workplace appropriate, and really makes them look like the assholes if they take offence to it.

I would definitely email them and ask as well. Like geographyrocks said, maybe they're waiting on something to come in, or (as was my experience with this before) this might be how the department handles being unsure about how many acceptances their first round will actually yield. If that's the case, I'd take it to mean it's probably a fairly short list.

I can't speak to whether it's at all indicative of where you are on the list, but I have heard of other schools sending out official wait-list emails before - Northern Arizona specifically. I'd agree that it's probably rather atypical, but definitely not unheard of.

I just had a conversation with my POI there, and got "unofficial" word from him - basically barring some unforeseen complication yada yada yada. I have nothing in writing, so I'm trying to stay planted on the ground. From what I was able to gather, the department as a whole is very near the "recommend for admission" status from the faculty to the adcom, which is probably followed up pretty swiftly by official notice of some sort being sent around (who knows what the turn around is, just guessing). Depending on how long it takes for them to start getting everything going, I'd assume later this week or next is when people would be hearing things. That's essentially right in their "mid-late February" generic target date that they set after the deadline closed, so I guess I'm not providing much new information except some indication that they're on schedule. ish. maybe.

I really have nothing but an opinion to base this off of, but if I were on the adcom somewhere and saw such a lopsided score, it would pop out as a massive red flag. I too share some of the frustration (full disclosure, I'm a STEM person) with humanities taking a "devil may care" attitude with the quant section, especially with the excuse "well we haven't devoted time to studying math through our degree because it's not a crucial aspect." I think that's a cop out. Let's not forget, all math is not the same. The math covered in the quant section of the GRE is, by and large, math most STEM majors haven't seen and/or used much since high school, so the assumption that it is material fresh in the minds of STEM students isn't really a valid one. STEM students generally aren't studying the stuff covered by the GRE either, nor is it crucial to their research (it's really just a lot of esoteric principles that are forgotten). Yes, STEM students may be more comfortable with math and recalling those concepts due to their continued study of more advanced, albeit probably mostly unrelated, math, but I don't think it leaves the door open as widely as some humanities students would think. In light of that, I think should be critical for humanities students to put up at least a reasonable score - not asking to be on par with STEM students, I know we get some slack on Verbal scores in most fields - and not doing so should really be a cause for concern.

Forgive me, I'm quite lax about calling the buses by their actual names. The point I was trying to get at is that there are, in fact, buses that one could get on to get around. Whether or not it's a flash, orbit, or M&G (I actually had no idea this existed/ was a different type of bus) wasn't really what I meant to focus on. Those are specifics that someone will have to figure out, and like me, probably disregard all of the other specifics that aren't along their route. Yes, I agree there are places between the downtown and tempe campuses that are not bad places to live. But, in general, that just isn't a nice area. If you've lived in the area a while you'll be able to pick out the good and the bad quite easily. But from the perspective of someone who has never been to the area before and may be hunting for apartments simply looking at a map, a general rule of thumb can be very helpful. It would really suck for someone to say to themselves "gee this spot at 32th St and Roosevelt is super cheap, between downtown and tempe campus, and right next to the freeway, Jackpot!" and not know that they're actually looking at a super shady area (I don't know if there's an apartment complex there, just made it up for this example). Sure, just across the freeway once you get into the nice Camelback area, things change literally across the street from one another, but it's hard to pick that up unless you know the area. Which is why I said error to the north with respect to the airport. Also, I don't want to bicker with small points, but comparing Mill to Downtown in terms of UG presence just isn't fair. Obviously they're around because DT campus is right there, but DT is tiny in terms of student population relative to Tempe campus. I agree, with so many you're going to find them everywhere. I didn't mean to suggest that if you go to Downtown for your nightlife you'll be off Scott free, but it's significantly different than what you'll see on Mill. It's definitely a different crowd by and large. The non-leather steering wheel cover is a good idea. And I'll add to that (for the ladies) a towel for your seat if you have leather or dark upholstery. Burning thighs from short shorts/skirts on your car seat in the summer - bad news.

Okay, so here's the rundown you need for living in Phoenix/Tempe (ASU). I've been a Phoenix-area resident for the last ~20 years or so. I'll try to keep it mostly geared toward toward the Downtown/Tempe area though. Some pretty solid advice listed above. There are a few specifics that I would add to the mix though. - Basic layout. Downtown is in a "revitalization" phase where there is a lot of hip, modern, upstart stuff happening. Lots of rebuilding and general tidying up of the place. It got pretty beat down and shabby, and is now trying to re-image. There is still lingering bad/shabby areas around mixed in with the new areas. Also, there is the "old money" mixed in there too, where the nice old houses and historical district is all tossed in. It can be very disorienting for people not used to the area to see all of these things mixed so haphazardly together. To the south east about 15-20 minutes from Downtown campus is the Tempe campus. This is a college town, but as the college is 50,000 strong, it's probably more accurate to call it a college city. - Building off of that, finding a place to live. You'll notice that between Tempe and Downtown campus is the airport (Phoenix Sky Harbor - huge airport). The surrounding area, especially to the north, west, and south around the airport are heavily industrial. That part of town is very beaten down, and is not a very good place to live for many reasons. You'll notice though that rent for apartments in between Tempe and Downtown campus are really cheap. That's why they're cheap. The area between the two campuses seems like a prime spot, but is definitely not a good place to live. There are some exceptions to this where the "old money" meets the broken down trashy areas, but you'll be able to see the transition easily with the price tag for rent. You're generally going to be safer the further north you push from the airport. The closer you get to the Tempe campus, immediately to the east of the airport, you'll quickly move into the heart of college town. Take home message, there are nice places to live in Tempe and in Downtown, but be especially weary of places in between. - Social scene. Downtown Phoenix is the artsy, chic, upscale/more sophisticated scene. There are a lot of galleries to go to and great eateries. Also where two of the major sports arenas are (Beware of traffic on game nights and during rush hours. It's no joke). Tempe is the college social scene. Mill ave. is the hub, but full, and I mean front row at a rock concert full, of undergrads. There's a ton of variety and cool stuff, but go there once and you'll know what to expect thereafter. Around Tempe there are a lot of places off of mill that are really cool as well, just have to hunt them out. Scottsdale is the other hub. You'll hear people call it "old town." Think of it as an older Mill, with a mix of the "new money" scene that is Scottsdale. Again, some cool spots at times. Find yourself a local to help you navigate these places. There are so many good and bad, but whatever you're looking for, it's around. -Transit. Public transit is on the rise. The lightrail train system is the best way to get back and forth between downtown and Tempe. It doesn't run to the west side or very far north yet though. I find a mix of bicycle, orbit (a free bus shuttle that runs in and around the tempe and downtown campuses), and the lightrail are great for school related stuff. A car is probably going to be nice to have for domestic stuff like groceries, and getting out of the city when you need a break from the heat. Sorry, you didn't want me to say it's hot, but it's hot. Feel free to start laughing at the "it's a dry heat" people. Also, there's so much of the city that the public transport just doesnt give you access to, that it'll be nice to be mobile. Stay away from the highways during rush hours. (~6a to 8:30a, and ~3-4ish to 6:30ish).

Well cool, I learned something new. Glad other people more in the know we're able to correct that one. @Souri_RS I don't know anything about the other schools on you list. Like I said before, atmospheric is well outside my knowledge range, so I don't think I'll be much help as far as answering the questions you posed to me. It sounds like you've selected some pretty top notch programs. I wish you luck with the admissions.

I don't know much about atmospheric science, but one thing I will say is it's hard to tell what schools you're talking about. There is a difference between University of Colorado, and Colorado State University. Same goes for Michigan and Michigan Tech. Michigan, as in Ann Arbor, would probably be a stretch as previously stated. I don't know anything about Michigan Tech, but I feel pretty confident that they'll be less selective than UM. Also, with Colorado, I think U of Colorado (Boulder) might be more selective than Colorado State. I might be wrong on that one though.

I'm probably solidly at about 20 or so per month on average over the last year or so. Some months a lot more, some a bit less. Depends on how many seminars I have. Though when I think journal articles, I think JGR, Tectonics, ESPL, etc. (~15-20 pages on average plus whatever supplemental stuff). Science and Nature papers are so short it barely even counts. They're short and sweet, closer to pleasure reading.

My letter writers are really moving mountains for me. I've gotten a lot of good advice throughout the application process for things on my end (SOP, communicating with POI, narrowing down schools, etc.) I feel my SOP is very strong, so I'm pulling my weight to load the bases (excuse the baseball references), with my references batting clean-up. I think it's essential that the people you choose to submit letters for you are people with whom you have a really good relationship. A great reference goes a long way, and if a POI who knows your letter writers happens to reach out and inquire further (probably not as uncommon as you might think), the ones with whom you have that relationship can really knock it out of the park. edit- My one piece of advice for SOP. Have your audience in mind when you're writing it. The best SOP is not the one with the best grammar, or even the one with the best story to tell. It's the one that tells it the best.

No decisions have been made yet so far as I can tell. Last I heard they were, like most schools still, in the process of reviewing applications. So the committee may have met, and applications may have been parsed out to respective POI for consideration, and that's where they sit at the moment.

So, all things being equal, atmospheric science and climatology would be really effective ways to integrate your CS background as well - your CS background would probably again be a positive rather than a deficiency in most cases. I've gathered that your interest in oceanography is stemming from past experience, but I figured I'd throw it out there for you to ponder. After all, ocean, atmospheric, and climate science are all very closely related and have a lot of overlap in research - especially with regard to methods where your CS background would be most useful. If nothing else, broadening your scope with these will give you many more schools and PI's research to look into to perhaps find that 'eureka!' project that really gets you going.

I agree with every one of Eigen's points. His points are very succinct, so perhaps it's helpful to build on that a bit. In grad school, it is no longer job prep, it is your job. You are being paid for the work you're doing, your department is now your workplace, and you should be mindful of that. At the very least, you are "colleagues in training," not joe shmoe that doesn't know anything. That being said, you aren't expected to know everything right away, rather you are expected to be proactive and able to learn everything you need to learn. So, don't freak out and hold yourself to the "I am a grad student therefore I must know everything right now" standard and save yourself the anxiety that goes along with it. Furthermore, comparing yourself to all the other grad students, and especially undergrads if you're in cross listed classes, is going to be a sure fire way to stress yourself out. Figure out what you need to know, and focus on that. Building core knowledge centered around your research is critical to passing your comps/quals/orals/ whatever qualifying exams you have to take, which is usually in the first 2 years sometime for PhD. This is really in line with Eigen's 2nd point comes in. Classes you take may be important for your exams to an extent, but your grasp of literature is going to be what propels your research, and after your exams your classes (if you are even taking any after) will contribute significantly less, if any, to your learning.

To my knowledge, there is nothing that will say you are not able to - assuming there are no strange anthropology specific rules. I'm sure there's no rules keeping you from attending, and presenting should be no issue either if you have something of merit to present. I think the easiest way to make this happen is to start working with a professor at your school doing lab work, etc. Your student status usually makes it easier for professors to fund you rather than an outside consultant, so cheap labor is really your selling point on that front - get used to it haha. I don't imagine anyone is going to be too keen to start a project from scratch, but working your way into and contributing to a project would perhaps lead to the ability to present that work at conferences.

My experience ran the gamut. I had a few professors that I corresponded with via email that felt very generic: introduction blurb, "oh cool, sounds like a good match, you should apply" response, +/- brief discussion of project opportunities/funding. I didn't apply to any of those schools, for better or worse. I had a few markedly unique experiences: One POI was extremely helpful but was not in a position to accept students. She did however offer to give advice over the phone, put me in contact with some other people based on my interest, and even offered to drop each of those people a personal note beforehand to break the ice - really went above and beyond to help me along despite having never met her before. Another POI started out of the gate by posing a thought experiment for me to answer back to. That was unique, and lead to quite an interesting and lengthy dialogue. The POI I ended up applying to work with were those with whom I had detailed correspondence over email and phone in some cases, and met in person prior to applying. This is just how things happened to turn out for me. I'm not suggesting this should be the measure by which you decide if it's worth applying. Like CC2014 mentioned, professors get busy and just because a conversation doesn't get exceptionally detailed or they seem to take a long time to get back to you (I had some 2-3 week waits mid conversation, but most times the POI did follow up and reply) doesn't mean they aren't interested.

This is actually something I am grappling with, and can tell you that it is, in fact, at the forefront of my decision on where to go. Very good topic IMO. I don't want to give specifics, but here are parts of the consideration between young and old PI that I find particularly difficult: 1. Ability to advise/mentor - older PI probably have developed a certain style of advising. Younger PI may be just developing their styler, or perhaps if they're really new May not even have one yet. Whereas with the older PI you may fit well or you may not, with the younger PI you are learning right along with them; for better or worse in either case. 2. Facilities - younger faculty are sometimes developing their labs still. A lot of your time as a student may go into developing the lab. Conversely, an established PI probably already has his lab up and running to his spec. If you like developing and tinkering, the young undeveloped lab might be your speed, who knows. 3. Funding - access to funding. It's no secret that the more established you are, the better access you have to funding, and the more sway you have. Younger faculty may get the short end of the stick sometimes, and that trickles down. No doubt that a bad funding year would really change your grad experience. Older PI sometimes have their hands in so many things that they can bridge gaps pretty smoothly, but younger PI still waiting on their first big grants don't really have that security. Might come back to this later, but that should be enough to stir the pot for a bit.

It seems like there is an interesting angle to be had exploring the reconciliation of "feminism" across a distinct historical/cultural divide; resolving what appear to be conflicting ideas into consistent ideas that are misunderstood/lost in translation when perceived by the other side. I feel like I just spewed one of those "super-deep-philosophical-ramblings-that-said-absolutely-nothing" though just now, because anything to do with an angle is going to have to come from your own interpretation - something that no one else is really going to be able to help much with. Certainly there are very thought provoking aspects to be explored, and your angle is really going to come down to how you choose to navigate your subject matter.

Perhaps this is part of the distinction between sciences and humanities, but it sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. Admittedly I haven't kept very strong tabs on Anne Coulter's opinions, but it sounds like you're writing this with an objective/vendetta rather than to draw attention to the actual subject you're presumably trying to highlight. With that in mind maybe your adviser forsees falling into some lengthy pitfalls. For example, to do this right I imagine having to justify and relate all of these issues concretely back to Coulter in a way that validates your thesis, but first you must actually properly frame your argument in the context such that you can say she is wrong. The background that you're going to have to set up is going to be a really large undertaking, I would imagine. So, in that sense I agree with St Andrews Lynx's second suggestion of a broader topic. Their first though I think suffers the same pitfall in that when you define a POV that you wish to rebuff explicitly, you're going to have to spend an inordinate amount of time contextualizing rather than arguing.